On 11/12/21 9:17 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 09:08:39AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/12/21 9:05 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 08:47:01AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/21 5:47 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 09:44:41AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 04:37:19PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>>>>> can only be used for reads, and no fua can be set if the preallocating
>>>>>>>> I/O didn't use fua, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are the pitfalls of just chanigng cmd_flags?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we need to check cmd_flags carefully, such as hctx->type has to
>>>>>>> be same, flush & passthrough flags has to be same, that said all
>>>>>>> ->cmd_flags used for allocating rqs have to be same with the following
>>>>>>> bio->bi_opf.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In usual cases, I guess all IOs submitted from same plug batch should be
>>>>>>> same type. If not, we can switch to change cmd_flags.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jens: is this a limit fitting into your use cases?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess as a quick fix this rejecting different flags is probably the
>>>>>> best we can do for now, but I suspect we'll want to eventually relax
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> rw mixed workload will be affected, so I think we need to switch to
>>>>> change cmd_flags, how about the following patch?
>>>>>
>>>>> From 9ab77b7adee768272944c20b7cffc8abdb85a35b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>> From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 08:14:38 +0800
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] blk-mq: fix filesystem I/O request allocation
>>>>>
>>>>> submit_bio_checks() may update bio->bi_opf, so we have to initialize
>>>>> blk_mq_alloc_data.cmd_flags with bio->bi_opf after submit_bio_checks()
>>>>> returns when allocating new request.
>>>>>
>>>>> In case of using cached request, fallback to allocate new request if
>>>>> cached rq isn't compatible with the incoming bio, otherwise change
>>>>> rq->cmd_flags with incoming bio->bi_opf.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 900e080752025f00 ("block: move queue enter logic into blk_mq_submit_bio()")
>>>>> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> block/blk-mq.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>> block/blk-mq.h | 26 +++++++++++++++-----------
>>>>> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>>>>> index f511db395c7f..3ab34c4f20da 100644
>>>>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
>>>>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>>>>> @@ -2521,12 +2521,8 @@ static struct request *blk_mq_get_new_requests(struct request_queue *q,
>>>>> };
>>>>> struct request *rq;
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (unlikely(bio_queue_enter(bio)))
>>>>> - return NULL;
>>>>> - if (unlikely(!submit_bio_checks(bio)))
>>>>> - goto put_exit;
>>>>> if (blk_mq_attempt_bio_merge(q, bio, nsegs, same_queue_rq))
>>>>> - goto put_exit;
>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>>>
>>>>> rq_qos_throttle(q, bio);
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -2543,19 +2539,32 @@ static struct request *blk_mq_get_new_requests(struct request_queue *q,
>>>>> rq_qos_cleanup(q, bio);
>>>>> if (bio->bi_opf & REQ_NOWAIT)
>>>>> bio_wouldblock_error(bio);
>>>>> -put_exit:
>>>>> - blk_queue_exit(q);
>>>>> +
>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static inline bool blk_mq_can_use_cached_rq(struct request *rq,
>>>>> + struct bio *bio)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (blk_mq_get_hctx_type(bio->bi_opf) != rq->mq_hctx->type)
>>>>> + return false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (op_is_flush(rq->cmd_flags) != op_is_flush(bio->bi_opf))
>>>>> + return false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return true;
>>>>
>>>> I think we should just check if hctx is the same, that should be enough.
>>>> We don't need to match the type, just disallow if hw queue has changed.
>>>
>>> But bio doesn't have hw queue. Figuring out exact hw queue seems
>>> necessary and needs more cpu cycles than getting hctx type.
>>
>> Thinking about it, if opf and request_queue matches, that should be
>> enough.
>
> I think that is same with hctx->type check: POLLED & OP needs to be
> same between the request and bio, and op_is_flush(), or could you
> explain how to run the exact check on opf?
I took a look at it, and I think your approach of checking the type is
indeed the best one.
--
Jens Axboe
